Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

I don't see how a front mounted engine interferes with armoring the front. A lot of the mass still goes to the back, such as the turret and ammo.

 

There is still some inbalance favoring the front, but it's not necessarily an issue. It helps in gaining traction over sloped surfaces.

 

What is really a factor is the volume. However, as I've said, in an interview given by a RAPAT official, the use of the MT883 engine allowed them to allocate enough armor to the front.

 

@Sovngard The sights have indeed changed, but there is no indication yet that the loader's hatch addition is directly related to the 4B model. The 4B model entered service around 2011-2012, long after that hatch was added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I don't see how a front mounted engine interferes with armoring the front.

   Umm... ok. Weight? Volume? What is that? How can big chunk of steel interfere with mounting even bigger chunks of steel and layers and layers of other materials in the same part of the vehicle?

 

36 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

A lot of the mass still goes to the back, such as the turret and ammo.

   When Merkava became rear turret tank? Are rear turret tanks better in general then central-turreted ones? Do you know that Object 299 front engine and rear turret/ammo layout resulted in "crew capsule" and not so great armor in front of engine compartment?

   Also, how much ammo adds to weight of a tank and what happens if tank don't have it? In peaceful time you will need a weight immitator to balance your vehicle to run it without addition wear of frontal parts of suspension, if ammunition was a main balancing factor in your design, heh. But would additional weight result in additional wear of components of suspension?  

 

36 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

However, as I've said, in an interview given by a RAPAT official, the use of the MT883 engine allowed them to allocate enough armor to the front.

   Enough for one could be not enough for others. Leo 1/AMX 30 vs T-64, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   Umm... ok. Weight? Volume? What is that? How can big chunk of steel interfere with mounting even bigger chunks of steel and layers and layers of other materials in the same part of the vehicle?

 

In terms of volume, quite a lot. The AVDS-1790 interfered with armoring the hull by simply being too big. Any more armor and the driver would have poor visibility. 

In the Merkava 4, that's not the case. And there's even enough length to spare in terms of visibility for the driver, as the new engine offered a significant reduction of the length of the powerpack unit.

 

14 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   When Merkava became rear turret tank? Are rear turret tanks better in general then central-turreted ones? Do you know that Object 299 front engine and rear turret/ammo layout resulted in "crew capsule" and not so great armor in front of engine compartment?

 

Not rear-turreted in an absolute sense, but a relative one. Relative to other tanks, its turret is located far closer to the rear than any other tank. That affects the balance of the tank relative to other tanks.

 

14 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   Also, how much ammo adds to weight of a tank and what happens if tank don't have it? In peaceful time you will need a weight immitator to balance your vehicle to run it without addition wear of frontal parts of suspension, if ammunition was a main balancing factor in your design, heh. But would additional weight result in additional wear of components of suspension?  

 

Ammo was just one example. RAPAT cite a figure of 50%-55% of the overall mass of the tank being utilized for extra protection of the crew, compared with an average of 20%-25% in contemporary designs.

 

14 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   Enough for one could be not enough for others. Leo 1/AMX 30 vs T-64, for example.

 

That's a rather extreme comparison. The design philosophy of the Merkava, at least in terms of armor, is much closer to the British one than, say, the German or American one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I don't see how a front mounted engine interferes with armoring the front. A lot of the mass still goes to the back, such as the turret and ammo.

Because you don’t have space to put armor modules at the front of the engine. 

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

There is still some inbalance favoring the front, but it's not necessarily an issue. It helps in gaining traction over sloped surfaces.

???

With tracks it’s useless. It’s even dangerous because you have a diving trend wich reduces the mobility on soft ground. 

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

What is really a factor is the volume. However, as I've said, in an interview given by a RAPAT official, the use of the MT883 engine allowed them to allocate enough armor to the front.

Yes. Compared to a Mk3, not compared to another tank chassis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, there were AFV paper designs with tank-level armor in front of an engine - SAIFV chassis, which apparently had allmost exactly the same UFP and LFP as XM1 (well, it's hull was higher, so UFP was longer than that of the XM1... and I'm not sure about UPF angle - may be it's like 0.5-1 degree greater, than that of XM1's UFP, or may be not):
LY5lihy.jpg
and also Hunnicutt's book on Abrams shows another vehicle - vol.2 p.280:
CLH8kOv.jpg
obviously both of them have somewhat-T-shaped LFP armor, because of some space required on both sides for transfer drives or whatever its called - required because apparently transmission is located some 2-2,5 feet further back than sprocket wheels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Serge said:

Because you don’t have space to put armor modules at the front of the engine. 

I've already addressed this in a reply to Loser.

9 hours ago, Serge said:

???

With tracks it’s useless. It’s even dangerous because you have a diving trend wich reduces the mobility on soft ground. 

 

There are more wheels in the front than the rear, as a consequence, to restore balance. And as you could have seen from past footage here, the Merkava has sufficient mobility in muddy terrain. Mud is where it's going to drive anyway, 50% of its service.

 

9 hours ago, Serge said:

Yes. Compared to a Mk3, not compared to another tank chassis. 

This is a context you added that did not exist in the article, so you're only estimating.

 

The different generations of Merkava were certainly evolutions of their predecessors, but clean sheet designs were not lacking.

Mark 1-2: Same tank.

Mark 3: Clean sheet design turret. Clean sheet design drivetrain.

Mark 4: Clean sheet design hull. Clean sheet design powerpack. Clean sheet design turret.

 

As both the hull and turret had to be changed drastically to apply the new changes, for example a new hull to account for the new engine+transmission, and support the new heavier turret. And a new turret to support a roof-mounted sight, a substantially larger cannon than Mark 3, and higher coverage of modular armor.

 

With that level of rework on the tank, and a rather substantial amount of combat for any of the main versions of the Merkava until the Mark 4, one could expect the IDF to realize a rear-engine tank would be the better alternative, if properly armoring the front was no longer possible.

 

Additionally, they wouldn't have been so keen to install the engine on the front of their brand new, entirely clean sheet designed MBT, if they didn't believe they could provide sufficient crew protection. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

?imw=1024&imh=1024&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=%23000000&letterbox=true

 

 

OK, by russian media. BTW, this youtuber is Russian (what a coincidence :lol:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2019 at 7:06 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Time to play smack-a-gentile.

This absolute madlad called @RedEffect put out a video with quite a few claims about, specifically, problems with the Merkava. I know the problems with the Merkava, and what he raised is either inaccurate, or misunderstood.

 

Here's the video:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Guy sounds like a wehrboo; should be flogged with an M1 inspired, DU whip. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

 

Guy sounds like a wehrboo; should be flogged with an M1 inspired, DU whip. 

 

He is just another Putin-obsessed Russian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

A lot of the mass still goes to the back, such as the turret and ammo.

There is still some inbalance favoring the front, but it's not necessarily an issue. It helps in gaining traction over sloped surfaces.

 

Take a look at the Swedish STRV-103, it had the tendency to nose down after passing an obstacle.

 

Quote

The sights have indeed changed, but there is no indication yet that the loader's hatch addition is directly related to the 4B model. The 4B model entered service around 2011-2012, long after that hatch was added.

 

So, which Merkava Mk. 4 model features/doesn't feature the loader's hatch ?

 

 

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The different generations of Merkava were certainly evolutions of their predecessors, but clean sheet designs were not lacking.

Mark 3: Clean sheet design drivetrain.

 

The fuel tanks within the double-bottom of the hull were also removed (air attenuates shock-waves more strongly than liquids) .

 

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Mark 3: Clean sheet design turret.

 

I wouldn't say that,

 

With the exception of the brackets and recesses for the special armor modules, the Merkava Mk. 3 turret is still very similar to the one of the previous models (in particular, the M60A2-style rounded bulges on the sides, above the turret ring).

 

1555949841-merk3armorp.jpg1555949833-img088del-web2.jpg

1555951253-img086del-web.jpg

 

Quote

Mark 4: Clean sheet design hull.

 

Quote

for example a new hull to account for the new engine+transmission, and support the new heavier turret.

 

However, protection-wise, the armor plate separating the the driver from the engine compartment doesn't appear to have changed since the Mk. 1 and the same goes for the fuel tank in front of the transmission.

 

Of course I agree that the glacis has changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sovngard said:

So, which Merkava Mk. 4 model features/doesn't feature the loader's hatch ?

 

Must be all of them have (serial models)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

And as you could have seen from past footage here, the Merkava has sufficient mobility in muddy terrain. Mud is where it's going to drive anyway, 50% of its service.

Sufficient is the right term. 

7 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

This is a context you added that did not exist in the article, so you're only estimating.

It’s not possible to integrate heavy armor modules with front engine. 

This is a reason why other countries  never made this choice. 

There are others problems of course like :

- the diving trend of the tank at speed ;

- the problem for thermal sight ;

- the pointing problem for the barrel ;

- the hull down position can be dangerous. 

 

7 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The different generations of Merkava were certainly evolutions of their predecessors, but clean sheet designs were not lacking.

Mark 1-2: Same tank.

Mark 3: Clean sheet design turret. Clean sheet design drivetrain.

Mark 4: Clean sheet design hull. Clean sheet design powerpack. Clean sheet design turret.

The Mk3 chassis is completely redesigned compared to the first generation. 

 

7 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Additionally, they wouldn't have been so keen to install the engine on the front of their brand new, entirely clean sheet designed MBT, if they didn't believe they could provide sufficient crew protection. 

Front engine has plenty of advantages for the tank crew everyday life. It makes possible to have a modular rear volume wich is a good point other tanks lack. 

And, as a former tank commander, I preferre front engine even if it gives plenty of drawbacks in tank design. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, VPZ said:

 

OK, by russian media. 

   Russian media are very peripheral in all this spreading myths about Western tanks activity, as they are often just repost shit from National interest and similar dumpsters, which makes Russian non-military medias to be just one of many walls of that NI-type echo-chamber of idiocy. 

   In fact i didn't saw such claims about Merkava thermal imager and engine heat creating problems in years from Russian medias (at least not one that are aimed at housewifes). Moreover, i probably saw more of positive tv shows episodes about Mercs (like "Desert battleship") than negative, haha.

 

4 hours ago, VPZ said:

BTW, this youtuber is Russian (what a coincidence :lol:)

   Yes, he is so russian that he can't read russian and need Russians to make even basic research on Russian tanks. Also, he is hanging out in French discord channels. Definitely a Russian. 

 

4 hours ago, VPZ said:

He is just another Putin-obsessed Russian.

   It looks like you are obsessed by seeing Russians everywhere, spreading myths on english forums about western tanks... Your value for this forum is going downhill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2019 at 6:33 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Externally, I haven't really paid much attention to it.

But the difference in armor construction is visible here:

Many thanks

 

On 4/21/2019 at 10:07 PM, Sovngard said:

IIRC, the Merkava Mk. 4A has a new commander panoramic sight and lacks of loader hatch.

Oh right, I read something somewhere about the loader's hatch being deleted....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Serge said:

Sufficient is the right term. 

 

I say sufficient because I don't think there was ever a proper comparison, or at least one available to public, on how the Merkava and other tanks compare to each other in different types of terrain, especially on mud. Judging by the plentiful available footage, I don't see any ground to claiming the Merkava falls short to any MBT in this category.

 

13 hours ago, Serge said:

It’s not possible to integrate heavy armor modules with front engine. 

This is a reason why other countries  never made this choice. 

There are others problems of course like :

- the diving trend of the tank at speed ;

- the problem for thermal sight ;

- the pointing problem for the barrel ;

- the hull down position can be dangerous. 

 

It WAS not possible. Today it's possible. The much smaller MT883 engine greatly helps in that regard. With the AVDS-1790 it wasn't possible.

Since basically every tank other than the T-14 had started its life long before compact but powerful enough engines existed, it truly wasn't really an option, and still isn't an option to most as it would require a serious redesign of the tank.

With hybrid or electric engines, this problem is basically reduced to dust. You can place the transmission in the front and then either a small generator or some batteries in the front to beef up the protection, and whatever remains that would take up crucial space, could be placed elsewhere. This was partially also done with the Merkava 4, as in that same interview they've also said that other than using a smaller powerpack, they moved other stuff around like filters and batteries, so they won't get in the way of armoring the UFP.

 

The "problems" of pointing the barrel, or heat waves for the thermal sights, are just myths and completely baseless, and I've already explained why.

A quick diving at negative slopes could be somewhat of a problem, which I've never heard Merkava drivers complaining about. 

And no idea why a hull down position could be in any way endangered by this design. The Merkava was designed from the very beginning with a British approach to protection, which revolved more around a static defense, especially in the Golan that offered vast spaces to fire on from above.

 

13 hours ago, Serge said:

The Mk3 chassis is completely redesigned compared to the first generation. 

 

Yes, but I'm talking about the hull in its entirety, as its design is still dependent on the engine. As shown here above, an Abrams-like approach to armoring the hull could be taken with any engine setup, but traditionally the IDF hasn't really armored the LFP of even tanks with rear-mounted engines.

Another prime example is the Namer. Because of the height of its hull, its armor design was engine-agnostic, so to say. They chose the AVDS-1790 engine because it was cheaper and would not hinder the protection of the vehicle. The armor was basically identical as the Merkava 4's - LFP is un-armored, UFP is of the same thickness. 

 

13 hours ago, Serge said:

Front engine has plenty of advantages for the tank crew everyday life. It makes possible to have a modular rear volume wich is a good point other tanks lack. 

And, as a former tank commander, I preferre front engine even if it gives plenty of drawbacks in tank design. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

With hybrid or electric engines, this problem is basically reduced to dust. You can place the transmission in the front and then either a small generator or some batteries in the front to beef up the protection, and whatever remains that would take up crucial space, could be placed elsewhere. This was partially also done with the Merkava 4, as in that same interview they've also said that other than using a smaller powerpack, they moved other stuff around like filters and batteries, so they won't get in the way of armoring the UFP.

 

Or just get rid of the transmission if you go full electric. The largest benefit will probably the power source enabling KW lasers and high powered EW. I'd imagine Hezbollah has learned some new tricks from the Russians in Syria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

merkava4-plant.jpg

 

That's very old photo, but the turret already has the hatch.

 

image.png

 

And here it looks like there is the loader's hatch, but it is sealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MRose said:

 

Or just get rid of the transmission if you go full electric. The largest benefit will probably the power source enabling KW lasers and high powered EW. I'd imagine Hezbollah has learned some new tricks from the Russians in Syria.

   Such as?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, VPZ said:

merkava4-plant.jpg

 

That's very old photo, but the turret already has the hatch.

 

image.png

 

And here it looks like there is the loader's hatch, but it is sealed.

The hole was kept for command post use of the tank and for training too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:
2 hours ago, MRose said:

 

Or just get rid of the transmission if you go full electric. The largest benefit will probably the power source enabling KW lasers and high powered EW. I'd imagine Hezbollah has learned some new tricks from the Russians in Syria.

   Such as?

 

There's been some stuff published on the subject. I'd imagine Hezbollah would be very interested in the conflict in Ukraine, although Russia used a lot of techniques derived from the Israelis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Here's the video:

While the video is indeed garbage, your rebuttal is as well.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

For the Merkava it's more important, and the engine is not covered by thin sheets, and the exhaust isn't just blown wherever. The entire area above the engine is thick armor, and the exhaust air is cooled and thrown downward. The engine cover is not hot, but the exhaust is.

So your counterpoint to "the engine bay being hot and in the front is an issue with the Merk" is "It's more important and therefore it isn't an issue".

If you actually bother to look at how the Merks 1-3 and the AVDS-1790 are put together, you would very quickly notice that the hottest air from the engine is blown straight onto the deck above (which on the Merk 1, 2, and early 3 would appear to only be solid steel, with no give-away bolt heads to indicate composite armor of any kind), and from there out the side louvers, sideways (and slightly back). if it were thrown down it would kick up clouds of dust.

Steel is, of course, an extremely good conductor of heat, and this in turn means that if the lower surface gets hot, well, so too does the upper one. The thickness of this plate is, in fact, mostly irrelevant.

Additionally, if you knew anything about other tanks which use the AVDS, you'd know that the entire purpose of the funky grating on the back of the M60 (and originally the M48A3 with the AVI-1790-8) is to reduce the IR signature. And yet despite that grating and exhaust tunnel design, the M60 retains a non-negligible IR signature. I strongly suggest reading what Hunnicutt has to say on the topic. To assume that the Merks 1-3, which squeeze more power out of what is effectively the same engine and therefore have more waste heat to remove, and have less grating area to permit airflow, somehow end up expelling colder air is plain fantasy.

Unlike the Merk, the M60 spits out its hot exhaust rearwards, out of the line of sight, and therefore the exhaust grills are out of sight from the front. The Merk has its exhaust grills in the front arc of the tank, where they can clearly be seen (and of course the grills heat up to approximately the temperature of the exhaust air). On the Merk 1 it was waaaaay worse, as the engine combustion exhaust was just piped out to the sides and expelled there, resulting in a large patch of the vehicle which get hot enough to fry an egg on. On the later Merks the exhaust was routed to mix with the engine cooling air exhaust, indicating that this was a large enough problem that it needed to be solved.

The later Merk 3 has a layered deck above the engine (if the bolt heads are anything to go by), and layers (particularly if they include air layers) are extremely good insulators, so that bit should be mostly ok now; the Merk 4 has both a layered deck and an MTU engine, in which the air flows the other way through the engine, from the top downwards and out the side. The Merk 4 also what looks like layered sponsons around the exhaust grate, which the 3 lacks; so that area too should be better off than it was. These tanks however also have solid steel hulls, which the engine can and does heat up through its mounting points (as you need pretty solid mounting points to hold down a 1000+HP diesel), and the hull extends forwards to the nose (and to the non-modular sponsons on the Merk 3), giving a large area in the front radiating away. It should also be noted that transmissions produce non-negligible quantities of waste heat, as do the brakes (torque converters too, yay viscous fluid shear), for obvious reasons; more so that the engine if you're doing anything other than standing still. And having those stacked right up close against the steel hull is asking for it to heat up.

 

So yeah, handwaving away the heat from the automotive components being in front as "Not true"

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

It adds only a very small portion to the heat signature. 

You wouldn't happen to have a single fact to back up that rather bold statement, would you? Like, a source of some kind?

Regarding the pic you posted, there's a certain component that deserves some attention there. Specifically, the tires on the roadwheels. You may note, that they are white and therefore cold. Now, what do we know about roadwheels on tanks?

hint: they ain't cold when the vehicle is moving:

1405690383-thermaltank2.jpg

So by the fact that the wheels are cold, we know that the Merk you posted has not been moving, and indeed one cannot tell how long the engine has been running; nor can the LFP, which is by all accounts part of the steel hull, be seen. Using a photo such as that to demonstrate the effect of the engine on the thermal signature is disingenuous at best.

 

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

In the Merkava 4 that has proper armor in the front, that's not the case.

The LFP is a thing on the Merk 4 too, you know; and considering how the rest of your treatment of this point is "I'd rather have a damaged engine", you're effectively trying to squirrel out of the fact that yes, the engine on the Merk is more vulnerable than it is on MBTs.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

If the engine is damaged by a penetrating shot, then in a conventional design it would have been a dead crew.

Not if said conventional design had, y'know, armor there, like, I dunno, the Abrams or Leo 2.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Against an APFSDS the engine indeed would not add much protection

Again, do you have a single fact or source to back that opinion up?

And, as usual, you are ignoring a much more vital component than the engine, care to guess what it is and why?

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Fuel tanks in any tank can catch fire. That's not unique to the Merkava. In the Merkava it may fry the engine. In another tank it could fry the driver.

In actual competently designed tanks post-1973 there are no fuel tanks in the crew compartment (excluding derivative designs which inherited them), so that's a bit of a moot point. Most modern tanks keep the fuel in the engine bay and/or the sponsons, and not in the front of the hull where armor belongs.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

RAPAT (Israeli equivalent of TARDEC) believe the armor suit they developed for the Merkava 4 is one where they didn't have to make any compromises

I find that hard to believe, you wouldn't happen to have a source for that would you?

Cause if we take that at face value, that would make the Merk the first tank designed without armor compromises since what, 1916?

Also the multiple generations of modules and sideskirts spotted on Merks suggests that that is not actually the case.

Of course another point that both you and Red missed is that tank armor is designed to meet a reference threat. What that threat is is a different question, but considering how Egypt, Jordan and Syria all operate tanks which fling APFSDS and which the Merk 4 is at least notionally supposed to be able to go up against and win, the idea that its armor doesn't at least do something against KE is laughable, to say the least. What the CE threat is is also an open question. Red also clearly doesn't get how "special" armors work against CE.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

That was a problem with the Merkava 4A, but not the Mark 4B and subsequent variants.

Again, fact to back that up? Cause without a source, that's just meaningless handwaving.

Cause even with the most modern turret modules seen on the Merk 4m, there doesn't seem to be any burster plate to prevent the blast from an ATGM disassembling the armor inside, the way we've all seen the pictures of it happening from 2006. If the declasified Brit Burlington docs are anything to go by, NERA arrays have trash multi-hit ability without burster plates, and there's no reason to believe the Izzys have some super duper sekrit sauce nobody else does to solve this problem.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

The Merkava's turret was built in a way that allows for substantial growth in firepower - up to 140mm.

That's a very strong statement to throw around unsubstantiated. You wouldn't happen to have anything resembling a source to support this claim would you? Official claims that this is indeed the case? Product page on one of IMI's websites that claims this gun ever existed? pictures of a testbed with the gun?

The last time I saw someone taking the claims of a 140mm gun on the Merk 4 seriously was back in the early 2000s, before the thing entered mass production, and even then it was presented as only being rumors and not thrown around as if it were a fact the way you're doing.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Accepting an L/55 gun is a no biggie. But there is no operational need for such a gun, and it's possible the IDF will skip right to the 130mm or whatever the next gun may be.

Both these claims also need to be sourced.

For reference, L/55 guns have a whole host of problems accompanying them, including balance issues, elevating mass and inertia, recoil impulse and length (same problem faced with more energetic ammo in L/44 guns), and so on. As part of the upgrade to the L/55 in the Leo (part of the A5 upgrade pack), the gun drives were replaced and the entire mantlet area redesigned -the newer mantlet is much narrower, and the gap is filled by armor boxes attached to the fixed turret structure, most likely to reduce the elevating mass and restore margins.

L/55 guns are enough of a headache that the US seems to have decided to not go that route because of the problems the testbeds had with them. Handwaving away integration issues like this as "no biggie" is being deliberately ignorant.

On 4/21/2019 at 2:06 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Similar to point 1, but you can see in the photo I added there that the radars are actually just as hot, if not hotter than the exhaust air.

We've already been over the whole thermals business and that picture, but what I don't get is even if we assume you are correct and the Trophy antennae are a stronger radiator in the relevant wavelengths*, how is this greatly increased thermal signature a point in favor of the Merk?

*even with extreme emissivity differences, I don't see how that could be the case. Comparing to a similar radar by the same manufacturer, I get 110W continuous power draw for the radars at most (comparing to the Elta EL/M-2129), as opposed to several hundred KW waste heat in the exhaust even at idle.

On 4/21/2019 at 7:33 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

But the difference in armor construction is visible here: 

A. You are aware that the wonders of modular armor mean that armor packages can be changed mid-batch, and that therefore doesn't make it a 4a/4b difference.

B. If you think minor changes like that (and whatever internal changes to the armor module it covers) are enough to prevent the blast from a warhead shrekking the armor after a hit you're somewhere between deluded and hopeless.

 

On 4/21/2019 at 2:19 PM, VPZ said:

This fake is spread by russian propaganda.

Before being a Democrat and blaming Russian propaganda, consider the following:

1. Is it wrong? If it is correct, or at least has a good change of being so, crying "propaganda!" is a great way to discredit your viewpoint.

2. Cui Bono? If the Russians don't stand to benefit (and indeed, what good does mocking the IR signature of an irrelevant third world country's tank does to the Russians), why would they waste their propaganda efforts on it?

Kindly use your brain before posting.

Also kindly try and keep your shitposting on this forum in full grammatically-correct sentences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2019 at 11:47 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

I don't see how a front mounted engine interferes with armoring the front. A lot of the mass still goes to the back, such as the turret and ammo.

Consider the geometry of actual armor without ignoring the LFP.

In addition, the mass of the ammo is almost insignificant (25 kg per round and 40 or so rounds in the hull is 1 ton, vs 2 tons each for the engine and transmission plus fluids).

On 4/21/2019 at 11:47 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

There is still some inbalance favoring the front, but it's not necessarily an issue. It helps in gaining traction over sloped surfaces.

That's not how tracked vehicles work, at all.

On 4/21/2019 at 11:47 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

What is really a factor is the volume. However, as I've said, in an interview given by a RAPAT official, the use of the MT883 engine allowed them to allocate enough armor to the front.

You keep throwing this around without sourcing it. While I get that the Merk 4 is better protected than the previous ones, I'm interested in hearing what the actual professionals have to say.

Also, the Namer shows that when sufficiently motivated even the Izzys can adequately place armor around an AVDS if we ignore the LFP as usual.

On 4/22/2019 at 1:04 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

In terms of volume, quite a lot. The AVDS-1790 interfered with armoring the hull by simply being too big. Any more armor and the driver would have poor visibility. 

The Mark 2D seems to show that the guys in charge disagree about the driver's visibility and armor on that side. On the engine side, continuing the hull line at the hump forwards to the beak instead of having it drop would make room for an armor module in front of the engine. That area is not in the FOV of the driver's central periscope nor in the FOV of the right one, which looks out over the engine deck.

On 4/22/2019 at 1:04 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

as the new engine offered a significant reduction of the length of the powerpack unit.

Please don't throw around things like this, they betray just how little you actually know.

Let's compare the AVDS-1790-5A as found in the Merk 1 to the MTU 883 in the Merk 4, shall we?

First, the AVDS:
2DH0pa7.png

And then the MTU:

2fYQUtL.png

Notice something? The AVDS is nominally approximately 4" longer. But that includes the turbo arrangement, which isn't included in the MTU engine dimensions. Once you include the turbo, the MTU 883 is longer.

But wait, you say, the powerpack isn't only the engine! The Merks have used CD-850 Allsions and RK-304 and RK-325 Renk transmissions!
So let's take a look at those now.

First, the CD-850:

Drugyhv.png

Note that the depth of the transmission, 29", is approximately 730mm.

next, the RK-304:

9ANGTEI.png

and finally, the RK-325:

https://www.renk-ag.com/en/products-and-service/products/vehicle-transmissions/rk-325/

Dimensions: 1,910 x 830 x 960mm

that's L*W*H.

So, in fact, the RK-325 as found on the Merk 4 is longer than the transmissions in any previous Merk model, as is the MTU engine.

So yeah, the "significant reduction in length of the powerpack unit" is a simple sign that you don't actually know what you're talking about, care to guess again?

On 4/22/2019 at 1:04 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Ammo was just one example. RAPAT cite a figure of 50%-55% of the overall mass of the tank being utilized for extra protection of the crew, compared with an average of 20%-25% in contemporary designs.

You should know the drill by now. Source this claim.

On 4/22/2019 at 2:44 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

There are more wheels in the front than the rear, as a consequence, to restore balance.

You're zigzagging from "theres no problem with armoring the front along with the engine, slight weight bias forwards is a good thing" to "need to restore balance by uneven wheel spacing".

Also that's not the only reason for having wheels spaced unevenly, care to guess what the other ones are?

On 4/22/2019 at 2:44 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Mark 1-2: Same tank.

Mark 3: Clean sheet design turret. Clean sheet design drivetrain.

Mark 4: Clean sheet design hull. Clean sheet design powerpack. Clean sheet design turret.

Again you're not bringing your A-game, step it up.

2 has a new powertrain with the Renk RK304 transmission, which necessitated changing the entire engine deck area, exhaust routed into the coolant air exhaust manifold, as well as turret changes like the mortar and special armor slapped on.

The drivetrain of the 2 is closer to that of the 3 than it is to the 1.

On 4/22/2019 at 2:44 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

one could expect the IDF to realize a rear-engine tank would be the better alternative

Well you'd also expect them to realize that ammo separation is the objectively correct way to go, but I suppose you can't get everything.

Also how exactly would you expect them to realize that the alternative is better when they don't have any experience with rear engine tanks newer than the M60A3, anyway?

On 4/22/2019 at 2:44 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

And a new turret to support a roof-mounted sight

Reminder that the Merk 3 has a roof sight.

On 4/22/2019 at 2:44 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Additionally, they wouldn't have been so keen to install the engine on the front of their brand new, entirely clean sheet designed MBT, if they didn't believe they could provide sufficient crew protection.

There's a difference between making something work and it being a good idea which gives you what you actually want.

On 4/22/2019 at 6:39 PM, VPZ said:

russian media. BTW, this youtuber is Russian

Red is not russian, even if you can't tell Eastern European accents apart.

On 4/22/2019 at 6:49 PM, VPZ said:

He is just another Putin-obsessed Russian.

What did the big bad Russians do to you anyway?

You're dragging the forum discourse level and SNR waaay the fuck down with your shitposting, cease.

 

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

With hybrid or electric engines, this problem is basically reduced to dust. You can place the transmission in the front and then either a small generator or some batteries in the front to beef up the protection, and whatever remains that would take up crucial space, could be placed elsewhere.

Hybrids bring their own host of problems, not least requiring more volume and weight than equivalent mechanical transmissions. Also, why would you go to all the trouble of putting the drive sprockets in the front, if you decouple them from the engine? it's objectively a worse location for them.

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

. Today it's possible. The much smaller MT883 engine greatly helps in that regard. With the AVDS-1790 it wasn't possible.

This bit we've been over before, and I'm just qouting it again to rub your face in how wrong it is and how you never bothered to perform 10 minutes of googling because you lack any self-critical thinking ability.

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 This was partially also done with the Merkava 4, as in that same interview they've also said that other than using a smaller powerpack, they moved other stuff around like filters and batteries, so they won't get in the way of armoring the UFP. 

You're gonna have to source this too, this claim in particular is interesting, as on the Merk the air filters were never in the way of the UFP in the first place!

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The "problems" of pointing the barrel, or heat waves for the thermal sights, are just myths and completely baseless, and I've already explained why. 

Aaaand you're confirmed for never having viewed anything through a camera resting above a hot surface.

9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

but traditionally the IDF hasn't really armored the LFP of even tanks with rear-mounted engines.

That's not only an incredibly asinine statement, considering how the IDF hasn't designed any rear-engine MBTs, but it's nevertheless still wrong:

full

gal_batash.png

gb1.png

 

In short, @Mighty_Zuk, you have a lot of unsubstantiated claims to back up, Referte Avt Morimini.

You've also said a lot of bullshit that betrays a basic and fundamental lack of understanding of the subject matter. Git larned, and kindly match the confidence displayed in your posts to your actual level of knowledge in the subject matter, and not to what you'd like others to believe it is. You are invited to step up your game and keep the baseless speculation and denial to other forums like AW, and refrain from overly nationalistic fanboyism.

Also, if you don't know something, even in a field which is close to your heart, just admit it. there's no shame in not knowing shit, but there's quite a lot in pretending to know stuff you don't and being flat out wrong.

Kindly raise the standard of your posting, we really don't want this place devolving into AW or worse, DFI. Which is unfortunately the current posting standard you are representing.

 

3 hours ago, MRose said:

Or just get rid of the transmission if you go full electric.

Sure, if you like your tanks immobile.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MRose said:

 

There's been some stuff published on the subject. I'd imagine Hezbollah would be very interested in the conflict in Ukraine, although Russia used a lot of techniques derived from the Israelis.

   That article is garbage. There are far more instanses of Russian military cooperating with Liwa Al-Quds during past few months than with Lebanon Islamic Resistance in 4 years. Liwa Al-Quds didn't suddenly became much better than they were. Hell, PMC training probably did more positive for their training than Russian Army "support" ever did. 5th assault corps was made out of garbage left from Soviet times like T-62Ms and similar crap like tin-can BMPs in ATGM-filled enviroment of Syrian war.

   In short Russian Army showed very little commitment to train or equip troops that we were supporting in Syria.

   On top of that Islamic Resistance had very few operations where both Russian and their side even participated in the same time with 2 of them comming to my mind now - Battle for Aleppo and push to Deir EzZor.

   On top of that i don't know what we can give to Islamic Resistance training wise, as Russian Army ground troops are not exactly super-well trained or more experienced.

   Also, our side showed more will to help to Israeli side in Syria than Iran or Islamic Resistance (airstrikes, story about Russian SFs searching body of dead Israeli, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By delfosisyu
      I heard Merkava tanks have  revolving magazine for main gun loading.
      Magazines hold 6 rounds for Merkava I, II,   5 rounds  for Merkava III, 10 rounds for Merkava IV. 
      After emptying the magazine, how is the procedure for filling magazines with stowed rounds?
    • By Serge
      The Armored Combat Vehicle Puma started as a privat-venture betwen Krauss-Maffei and Diehl in 1983. The two first prototypes were ready first in spring 1986 with a Kuka 20mm two men turret and second in autumn with a Diehl 120mm mortar turret. 
      ACV-Puma was intented as an export armored vehicle of the 16-28 t class. 
       

       
      By 1983 original concept, it was offered with two engine options (400/600hp) to cope with the level of armor protection asked.
      The running gear was a mixt of both Leopard-1 and 2 components :
      - Leo-1 : road wheels, track support rollers, torsion bars and even the driver's seat ;
      - Leo-2 : track adjuster, cooling system components and sproket hub.
      It was possible to run the engine outside of its compartment. 
       
      In 1988, the concept was improved further :
      - the class range reached 38t ;
      - the engines offer was 440 or 750hp strong ;
      - the chassis was now available in two length (5/6 road wheels) and  hight/low profil hull (20cm).

      The ACV-Puma was a contender at the Norwegian IFV programme from 1991 and the Turkish 1987 relaunched TIFV programme.
      Norway chose CV-90 and Turkey, the AIFV.
      (If anyone have information about how it was a serious contender, I'm interested)
      It was also evaluated by the Swiss army in 1991. I don't know if it took part to the Char de grenadiers 2000 programme. 
       

      In 1983´s concept, the difference betwen the low profil hull and the 20cm higher hight profil hull was obtained by a "box shape vertical raised" rear compartment. With the 1988's design, the front slop is now different to achieve a better ballistic protection. 
       
      When considering documentations of this period, it's important to note the mine/IED protection was not a priority like today. 
       
      I'll post soon a scan showing general layout of the troop compartment. It's a Marder/BMP old fashion one with soldiers facing outside. 
       
      Even if it was not a success at exportation, I think ACV-Puma must be known because of both :
      - the outdated combat beliefs of the 80's (still vigourous today) ;
      - and advanced proposal  such as the differential hull length from the drawing board. 
       
      I have a question :
      Does anyone known if a 6 road wheels chassis was ever built ?
×
×
  • Create New...